H2O,

I cant make my decision just based on the issue of fish and the environment.

Truth be told the only reason why I will support bush is for his hard line stance agianst anyone who threatens the United States. Bush has made it clear that no one is going to tell the US what to do if it is not good for the US.

In todays world we cannot be passive and ignore the threats out there to our way of life. I like being an american and like may way of life. If I wanted someone else making decisions about my security I would live in Europe and the UN would do that for me.

I have no choice but to vote for Bush agian even though I do not agree with much he has done.

I dont feel good about it but he makes me feel safe and that is what matters more than anything else.

I guess my point is that since you helped vote in the administration responsible for this policy change I don't see much room for complaint....as you had to know that these environmental policies would be the result.

As far as security goes I suppose that's an issue for the off-topic forum...BUT...since you brought it up...

You honestly 'feel safer' now than before 9/11? That Bush downplayed the Al Qaeda threat presented him by the previous administration gives you a sense of security?

Maybe, just maybe I'll give you that, but only in our backyard and that's highly arguable. Now...how about if you were a us citizen travelling abroad? Tahoe...if you read this I know you are about head to the continent for awhile...do YOU feel safer as a travelling american? I doubt it....

Rich, the person responsible for the attack against the united states is still at large, the head has not been cut off the dragon so to speak. I submit to you that any sense of security you are given by the current administration is a false one. My position is that we are MORE at risk now from terrorist attack because of Bush's war in Iraq than we were if we had just left it with bombing the crap out of afghanistan.

Hehe...I know we aren't going to change each other's mind on this....

Your right about not changing each others mind so there is no point in the debate.

Is this the same 9th Circuit Court that recently ruled that hatchery sockeye could no longer be planted in Tustumena Lake (Kasilof AK) ?

Why the disconnect between their ruling in Alaska and what they propose for the PNW?

The more I stew over this hatchery = wild ruling, the more I am stunned by how such a decision could have been made given the available science. Or could it be that the best science was suppressed or simply omitted when the case was being heard. Obviously they need to hear the rest of the story.

And wild salmon advocates need some real lawyers to argue their case.... is Todd for hire?

I dont get it. why the fuss?

It seems pretty plain and simple to me that you cant put chinook on the endagered species act if the are hatcherys raising millions of them! How can they be endangered?

What kind of moron does it take to spend 700 million dolars on salmon recovery and not be able to show major improvement in wild stocks? how many more millions of dollars are you willing to spend before you realize what your doing aint getting the job done.

How many commercial licenses could 700 million dollars buy?

Micro,

I believe that the major fuss over this has to do with habitat degredation. If fish don't need to actually spawn in the wild why protect the natural habitat? Does this mean more hatchery production? Probably, but that is not really a good thing. Hatchery fish are designed to support harvest and relieve some pressure from naturally spawning fish, not replace them and that is what will happen. In many PS systems naturally spawning chinook are in grave danger of reaching critical levels, or already there. There may be thousands of fish returning but only a small amount are spawning in a natural habitat while the gross majority swim back to the hatcheries.
This opens the door for even more logging, mining, development and countless other negative impacts. The ESA listed spotted owl is the only reason we still have old growth forest outside of the parks.
This is a victory for big business and big business only. If you believe you will be harvesting more fish, think again. And even if you do have a problem releasing struggling wild chinook when there are clipped fish bred for the taking I feel sorry for you.
As a lifer in Washington I hate seeing these types of decisions made outside, especially in Cali where it's all about money. I'd like to see this "science" if anyone knows where to find it becasue I can't.

So micro are nets the only problem facing salmon?

And if you feel this is a win for fisherman, please explain.

I think Judge Michael R. Hogan's (I think he is a Democrat) precedent is flawed. The term ''endangered species'' means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range... The intent of the law was to save wild species and subspecies in certain geographical areas. His ruling (stayed by the 9th circuit court) removed protection for central Oregon coho. He ruled in favor of development, logging, and agriculture interests. These interest groups are going to challenge 24 of the 26 ESA listed salmon stocks along the west coast.

What can we do about it? Write, email, or phone your representative. Vote for whoever you want to for president because Kerry will win WA, OR, and CA and the election will be determined by Jeb in Florida anyway. $700 M seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the 100s of billions being spent to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Enjoy salmon fishing while you still can.

This is going to be a dry summer and the rivers are going to be drained for hydro electric power and they're going to divert the Columbia to California and then Texas.

"Think it through! Impacts to wild fish wll be removed and allow the commercials and tribes to take every single fish they are allotted."

....and sportsfisher-menandwomen.

Since 'wild' fish and hatchery fish are the same I s'pose this means we should be allowed to harvest the wild fish....right?

Just a couple quick questions for which I would like informative (non-political) answers:

Are wild and hatchery fish genetically the same with the difference being their upbringing? (I assume they take "wild" eggs and sperm to make hatchery fish)

Didn't Oregon try to get the distinction between wild and hatchery coho removed recently?

I will definitely continue to contribute to this discussion, but right now I'm getting ready for a meeting in about two minutes, and then I'm going camping. Let me say really quickly that while Grandpa does make some legitimate points, he's a little off on the 9th Circuit decision. The Appeals Court did not actually "uphold" the original Hogan Ruling. As with most legal stuff it's more complicated than that. Basically they declined to hear the appeal, which has the immediate effect of "upholdng" the original ruling, but not as a matter of law (the 9th circuit never officially endorsed the "fish is a fish" doctrine of the Hogan decision). What the court said was that the appellants had to wait until the bad thing they fear actually happens before they can come back and make their arguments. so isn't this the bad thing? Sort of, but for the 9th circuit's purposes, not until everything is finalized which won't be for several months. I would imagine that if it goes that far, resubmitting the appeal may be part of the fight against this policy change.

But regardless, there is no doubt that science does not support this new policy. And the implications are so complicated and far reaching that it will take a lot more time than I have right this minute to go into, but Aunty sure has a point when she says watch how the commercials react.

I'll be back on Monday, if by some chance interest in this issue remains high.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Today's Seattle PI:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/171320_joel30.html

FNP,

The best available science was presented to the administration. This science doesn't meet the administration's policy needs. Consequently, the administration is/has developing/developed its own science/ ESA interpretation, and is issuing a policy consistent with its needs.

A suitable anology may be found in Weird Science, the website that described the ANWR study of 200 some pages over 2 years that described the threats of oil drilling in ANWR to wildlife. That study was at odds with the administration's needs, so Secretary Norton found (apparently, never figured out who they are) two USGS scientists, who in 2 weeks produced a 2 page report that oil drilling wouldn't harm wildlife. That was declared the best available science, at least the best available science that supported the administration's policy. I believe we can expect more of the same on behalf of the new salmon policy.

Fortunately for salmon, the administrative record is very strong with respect to ESA listings generally, and the distinctions between hatchery and wild salmon. The environmental groups will likely use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the best available science when they sue the government, which the courts will probably find doesn't support the the administration's policy. But the election will be over by then.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"A suitable anology may be found in Weird Science..."


I thought for a minute you were going to say that Bush had a bra on his head when he formulated this particular political stance.

Funny thing is not only can I picture it, I'd also believe it.

of course nets are not the only problem but the fact is that nets do not discriminate that puts them at the top of my need to get rid of list.


nets.
seals and commorants.
dams.
hatchery reform
poachers.
people unwilling to adress the above issues first.

Hogans ruling, says that salmon are salmon whether hatchery or not. Bushes decision does not do away with current enviromental protections. you still cant go dumping chemicals in a river or logging it to the waters edge. The only thing that has changed is that salmon will not be on the endagered species list.

NETS- Increased netting due the lack of a need to allow suitable escapement. If overharvest occurs which it will, they now have a cure all for themselves which is pump out more fish from our hatcheries. You put the nets at the top of your list and this will only increase netting activity exponetially.

SEALS- Maybe, but they only cause major problems in areas where fish are trapped such as behind a DAM. Other than that they are just a nuissance.

HATCHERY REFORM- Well now all that's going to matter is the amount of fish produced. Quality obviosly is of no concern when you consider how fish farming does business. And I'm afraid that any new hatcheries will only be located on the bottom 5 miles of a river.

DAMS- The ESA is the only way to restore native runs in the upper Columbia tributaries. There is no way dam removal will be an option when it doesn't really matter how much river is needed to sustain a hatchery run. Those dams will stay as will the 2 on the Elwha which is even a bigger shame.

POACHERS- The successfull poacher will never be caught. And now it's about time that individual tribes are taking resposibility to patrol and prosecute tribal poaching. It still has a ways to go.

The point of all this Micro, is that this ruling will set back all of these concerns you share with your fellow angler years. It's taken how many years to get commercial netters to adopt new practices including ways to target specific fish and protect certain runs. Granted it still has a LONG way to go, but I felt we were on the right track.

The only people unwilling to adress the above issues are our current leaders. This is in the interest of very few, very wealthy businesses that don't give a damn about the environment and they make me sick. This whole thing makes me want to do away with hatcheries altogether.

Here is something I found on the web.

Enjoy:

Environmental Activists And Their Editorialist Allies Boo-Hooing About Hatchery Salmon Policy
By Dennis M. Becklin

It was inevitable. Radical environmentalists made the ridiculous claim that hatchery salmon are different than wild salmon. They tried to make it stick by pressing lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act. They lost. Now, they and their allies in the media are crying the blues. Poor babies.

The enviros' concept that a hatchery fish of the same species is biologically, or culturally, different than the wild fish that provided the eggs and sperm for the hatchery fish hatchling...has always been asinine.

Asinine?...yes. Expensive?...very. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been poured down the proverbial rat-hole as a result of lawsuits brought by the wild fish gang.

Just another example of the extremes that the environmental law firm industry (i.e. the environmental movement) has gone to in padding its own pockets with ESA awarded legal fees...and the extent to which the slow grinding of the American legal system has been manipulated to cause this wild fish travesty to go on far too long.

Thankfully, it's now over. Sanity is returning to salmon fish policy in the west.

The enviros and their media allies need to get used to it. The decision is in. Hatchery fish and wild fish of the same species both contribute to the acknowledged populations of salmon and steelhead for purposes of determining if their populations are threatened with extinction.

As might be expected, the wild fish gang is not willing to take their defeat gracefully. The latest surge of editorial comment and editorialized journalism smacks of the kind of bias that contributed to the wastage of an immense amount of time and money by governmental agencies and taxpayers who were whip-sawn by endless wild fish abuses caused by ESA lawsuits.

The enviros weren't alone in pursuit of the wild fish fantasy. They had lots of help from government. In particular, Oregon government, past and present, made major contributions to the creation and nurturing of the asinine wild fish policies.

Right at the top of my list of wild fish wastrels is former Governor John Kitzhaber. This governor spent eight years in office pushing the radical environmental salmon agenda. What did he gain for the state? Economic disaster. Kitzhaber's fixation with saving un-threatened salmon ushered in a calamitous loss of timer industry jobs, countless costs for litigation expenses by resource based industries and an era of economically threatened Oregon communities.

Governor Kulongoski's natural resources advisor, Jim Myron, is right in there with the best of the Kitzhaber era. Myron was appointed by Kulongoski after working as a wild fish advocate for years as an employee of Oregon Trout, one of the prime movers behind wild fish initiatives in Oregon. Note Myron's continuing, prominent, public role in his latest musings in the Oregonian article above.

I've never made any bones about my position on this subject. And I'll put my conservation ethic up for comparison against any of the wild fish gang or latter day fish purists. As part of a four generation fly-fishing family, we've always practiced good conservation and good care for our environment. As for the wild fish baloney...it's simply that...baloney. Two of my previous editorials on this subject can be found by clicking on the following links:

To Adipose or Not to Adipose:
http://grantspassnews.com/articles/index.cfm?artOID=110880&cp=004277

Oregon's Coho Are Partying Tonight:
http://grantspassnews.com/articles/index.cfm?artOID=177728&cp=4277

Get out and enjoy fishing and eating west coast salmon. They're plentiful and they will continue to be plentiful as long as wild stocks of these fish are supplemented by hatchery fish of the same species.

Let the enviros and their wild fish buddies eat crow. They're plentiful, too....

Dennis M. Becklin, Publisher
SouthernOregonNews LLC
GrantsPassNews.com
MedfordNews.com
NewsAshland.com

And Dennis Becklin, an obvious cracker, makes the ridiculous claim that they're the same.

And here you are making yourself look like a cracker by posting his drivel. Good work, Plunk.

if this does become law does that mean we dont need to worry about a stinken extra fin ???? and will they still clip any????

Plunker,
Thanks for posting that GREAT editorial!!
Anyone who thinks that if you take a salmon egg and furtilize it with salmon sperm.That you wont end up with a salmon needs to go to a biology 101 class.